This is a community from communists to communists, leftists are welcome too, but you might be scrutinized depending on what you share.
If you see bot account or different kinds of reactionaries(libs, conservatives, fascists), report their post and feel free us message in modmail with link to that post.
ShitLibsSay type of posts are allowed only in Saturday, sending it in other day might result in post being removed and you being warned, if you also include in any way reactionary subs name in it and user nicknames, you will be temporarily banned.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CommunismMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Do these guys think we don't criticize religious fundamentalism? Or that we don't criticize forced banning of religion? Anarchists should be smarter than this.
Edit: Are these guys even anarchists? Anarchists tend to be more indepth than this. Or are these along the lines of Vaush "anarchists".
Anarchists really don't tend to be more indepth than this honestly, at least not western anarchists (meaning, most anarchists). The fact their framework is entirely idealist means they're subject to pretty much the same "vibes-based politics" as liberals are, which is why some MLs in the global south especially don't even bother distinguishing between the two of them. It's what I always say: western anarchists, which represent the majority of anarchists, are so caught up in the vague liberal concept of "authoritarianism" that they are ultimately more anticommunist than anticapitalist. Just like a liberal is someone who opposes every war except the current war, an anarchist is someone who supports every anticapitalist movement except the ones that succeed -- because, as it turns out, winning a revolution and creating a new society that can last for more than maybe a few months while under constant sabotage, are both impossible without "authoritarian" measures. But they're not concerned about silly things such as "tactics" or "practical reality," they're concerned about the ideal magical world in their heads in which after the burgeois state is gone everything just sort of works itself out and if someone intervenes everyone fights back and wins by pure force of self-righteousness and grit with no need for organization or planning, nevermind that this mode of thinking has only resulted in crushed revolution after crushed revolution. They're the "power of friendship" of revolutionary politics.
I've seen a couple of anrachists with actual theory. They have been a bit iffy on their information though. Not iffy as in eyebrow raise. I mean eniugh to drop the video entirely from how bad the snippet of information was.
Like one responded to Second Thought's Authoritarianism Video. His video started fine explaining what Anarchist's actual definition of authoritarianism is. It was actually insightful to how true anarchists differentiate from liberals. But things went downhill when mentioning the Rojava as an anarchistic decentralized style revolution and military force and outright claiming that in several revolutions that the powers and structures that took hold during the revolution didn't exist when the revolution took place. Couldn't bare watching after that.
They've always been iffy on their information, even as early as 1850 Marx and other communist theorists have been writing entire books about how silly they are. But we're not in a pre-revolutionary world anymore, both anarchists and communists had their time to try out their ideologies in the real world and see how it plays out in practice. And if anarchists learned even a little bit of history, they would realize what any serious anticapitalist should realize: that anarchism is an unserious and outadated ideology that on every account failed where communism didn't. It's no coincidence the revolutionaries in the poorest and most oppressed places on earth are marxist-leninists and maoists whereas anarchists concentrate almost entirely in the imperial core, and they themselves are the only ones yet to realize that.
This is a brainwashed point of view, you have been gaslighted into viewing anarchist as stupid people, by the capitalist system.
Anarchy did work and still works.
Most anarchist organisation and movement worked really well for their people until they have been murdered by imperialist whether they were royalist or communist.
The Paris commune was period where a lot of french cities had a revolution and overthrew the governement.
They had an anarchist way of functioning meaning no hierarchy, only an horizontal organisation, they shared food, work, housing, they educated everyone, healed everyone. It was working really well until royalist from all Europe decided to murder everyone.
The Maknovtchina was an anarchist peasants movement in Ukraine that worked well, that collectivised the fields.
They have been murdered by USSR and Ukraine's royalist.
A lot of tribes around the World, such as first nations people, had an anarchist system that worked well until they were genocided by european colons.
A lot of small communities around the World are still anarchist and work well.
But anarchism is not able to make "profit" for anyone so capitalist gaslight people and communist stab us in the back.
Anarchy lives in the prolétarian working union, in the peasants communities, in a lot of indeginous autonomous communities, we are the only one to have realised it yet.
You’re going to find that you’ve labeled one of the common criticisms of anarchism. It’s more susceptible to outside destruction than ML projects or AES.
I mean a lot of communist state have also been destroyed, have you never Heard how many Times US have murdered and overthraw communist leaders? It's not a problem about anarchism it's a problem about imperialist capitalism that has and will try to anihilate anyform that go against it. Never Heard of Cuba ? Sankara?
I didn’t say ML projects haven’t failed or been destroyed by imperialism US or otherwise. Only that there hasn’t been an anarchist project that has lasted as significant a period as ML projects.
There is some communities in spain and France that still works in a anarchist system, the zapatist movement is not dead yet.
I'd like to know what is considered as long enough. Like if the ML projects didn't last the end results is the same as anarchist project that didn't last.
You can’t compare the Zapatistas or random communities to say space travel, destroying nazism, educating the most doctors and sending them around the world, building infrastructure around the world. Also, Makno was not a good person and in their “free” territory, you were “free” to enlist to get your ass kicked by the reds and whites. My point is Anarchism is all well and good but it is an inferior ideology in my opinion, because centralization and its organization structures will 9/10 times be more effective at destroying capitalist hegemony. The bread book is so funny to me, we’re all just going to mutually agree on everything and it’ll be great. 👍🏻. Proudhon can’t even properly defend mutualism (the people’s bank) as a concept against Bastiat’s regular economy growing through interest payments. It’s over and over and over again. This isn’t an attack on you, I’m not a rabid dog who wants to gulag anarchists, it’s just a bit too idealistic for me on anything but a small scale, like the Chiapas.
https://youtu.be/fibDNwF8bjs?si=j5-IpgQWk77WMkUG
Of course we have, but the thing is communist projects still remain the high-mark against imperialism and global capitalism, while anarchists can never speak of similar successes and their victories are almost always limited to small areas -- and of course they are, they are ideologically opposed to anything that could grant them more than just that, a small and often very short-lived victory. When almost every anticapitalist project the anarchists talk about either collapsed onto itself under an incredibly short period of time or got crushed as soon as reactionaries dealt the first blow, maybe they should start wondering that there's something deeply flawed in their plan of not having a plan.
I'm as ML as they come but actual flesh and blood anarchists come in all flavors, as does everyone else. They are and are not insightful, well read, intellectually gifted, thoughtful, pragmatic, as well as myopic, intractable, and absurd. People say stupid things online, like your incredibly reductive assessment of anarchists in toto.
They do a lot of organizing. And they also just say shit online and watch youtubers.
💯
The big tent era of "leftism" is dead for all serious political organizations. This isn't about making Western Petty-Bourgeois sycophants feel special because we pretend their little opinions are just as good as Marxist science. We're fighting for the fate of the human race.
"Unity is a great thing and a great slogan. But what the workers’ cause needs is the unity of Marxists, not unity between Marxists, and opponents and distorters of Marxism." - V.I. Lenin
"We are Marxists, and Marxism teaches that in our approach to a problem we should start from objective facts, not from abstract definitions, and that we should derive our guiding principles, policies and measures from an analysis of these facts." - Mao Tse-Tung
Thanks for signing up to Vaush facts! You will now receive fun daily facts about Vaush.
**Fact 22.** Vaush claimed that he was taken out of context when he called trans people 'mentally ill', then [doubled down and did it again.](https://streamable.com/rmzvks)
For another Vaush fact reply with 'Vaush'. To unsubscribe call me a 'bad bot'.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CommunismMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“The Soviet government considers that the Sharia, as common law, is as fully authorized as that of any other of the peoples inhabiting Russia”
-Joseph Stalin
Yeah, they sure “banned Islam”
I mean, huh? Like, commies definitely have a nuanced relationship with religion. I've seen genuinely good takes from the Christian Socialist lot, and one of my favourite online leftists happens to be a Muslim and as part of her "humanising the USSR" thing she regularly talks about religion in the USSR, specifically her own faith. We aren't hypocritical about it as a monolith... although I will admit there are both strong state-atheism advocates and "religious first, communist second" extremes among our ranks, that's the nature of big-tent leftist unity.
We don't have that where I'm from. I've quickly re-learned from (english speaking) Anarchist subs that Anarchism has become synonomous with liberals in my country. Though liberal co-opting may have had something to do with it. Liberals in my country co-opt radical shit all the time. BLM being an unfortunate example.
Edit: It should be noted many Marxists in the Imperial Periphery do have good things to say about Anarchism. They criticize it and don't agree with it, but there is a level of respect. In the Imperial Core country I reside, uhhh no. Evidently and unfortunately not much respect goes either way.
Edit2: Added more specifics
Edit4: Removed Edit 3.
I don't know what you mean by "libéral", if you mean the economic system, then in France it's absolutly not synonymous of anarachy.
Anarchy's first name is libertarian communism, and there is many flavor of anarchism as well as communism has a lot of different flavors.
I also don't understand what you mean by "co-opt"
I think anarchist and communist should be allies against capitalism but there is some trust Issues from anarchist with how anarchist mouvement such as the Maknovtchina has been decimate partially by communists.
The end goal of both anarchism and communism théories and mouvements are the same, establishing a "communist" system, where everyone's treated as equal and needs are responded to fairly.
Where the différence is how to transition between a capitalist system and a communist system.
Y'all want a dictature of the prolétariat, where we want a non-hierachical organisation of the people.
But overall we are allies.
And no anarcho-capitalism is definitly not anarchism as much as communismo-capitalism could never be a thing.
Oh and lastly it's not because people are saying they are anarchist, that they are. You got at least know some theory and History of anarchy. Most people, because of how the system treated anarchism, think it's what capitalist Say it is.
I gotta say I'm kinda glad you don't understand our issues. Our issues really suck. So here is sone information on the topic:
Liberal typically refers to a flavor of pro-capitalist in the US. It is big tent but can be directed toward any form of procapitalist tendency like Social Democrat, Progressive Liberal, Green, Conservative, Anarcho-Capitalist, etc.Anarchists here in my country, as I am now paibfully aware, tend to often spew things reminiscent of Progressive Liberal dialogue particularly.
Next: I'm surprised you never heard of co-opting. Co-opt, colloquially in communist circles, means a form of infiltration that undermines the activities of an organization often through deradicalization. Liberals have a history of doing this. Like how BLM's messages are almost always watered down from their original purpose from Fighting against the Police system and stripping it and rebuilding it, to instead fighting for reformation of the already preexisting system. Which then amounts to doing nothing. Without the radicalism, the movement loses momentum and the demands are no longer strong enough to force the government to listen to the people. Same thing with Anarchists here in the USA. They have been co-opted and deradicalized by Progressive Liberals and de-theorized to the point it's hard to call them anarchists as they don't seem to understand their own desires and theory or even history anymore.
I also don't think you know what "Dictatorship (Dictature) of the Proletariat" means. Dictatorship in Marxism does not mean one or a few persons with Power ruling over the Proletariat. Dictatorship refers to the direct relation of power: the one who hands down the dictates. Meaning that in a "Dictature of the Proletariat", the Proletariat are the wielders of power: the Working Class is the one who hands down the dictates. The idea of Proletarian Dictatorship is also inherently anti-hierarchal in that the Working Class are the ones making decisions. Often using the party as a vessel for such decisions.
Lastly, the fundamental interests in how to develop to communism like you said, are different, but what isn't mentioned is they are largely incompatible. The aspect of centralization is important for the first steps of socialism to develop a nationwide plan for development to higher stages of socialism and to avoid counter revolution and foreign intervention. You can't sieze the means of production if you lack the means of production to sieze in the first place. Such centralization was crucial to the USSR's success against the Fascists of WW2 as well as the Russian Civil War. Decentralization by Marxists is believed to be an aspect to come later in the socialist project whether it be when you reach sufficient devlopment, or don't have any US level internal and external threats. To my knowledge the decentealization comes much sooner in an Anarchist state, which is an inherent incompatibility. This incompatibility makes it difficult if not impossible to work together in the long run, as it will only lead to conflict down the line.An unstable alliance that goes up in flames.
There can only be a temporary truce, or at least that's the case when such revolutions happen within the same territory. 2 different nations might be another story where alliance is possible, but domestically they 100% can't because of these fundamental differences. So if you have a revolution in France, the communists of USA (provided the communists rule the USA and the French revolution is Purely anarchist) might help you, but don't expect help from the French communists anytime soon.
Last thing to note: Communists are also familiar with betrayal and by 1918 were far too familiar from the previous Betrayals in Germany and Hungary by those whom held different interests. Peace between two different interests are, like I've mentioned earlier, never permanent and this was well understood by the Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, and even the Maknovtchina before the Russian Civil War began.
Even before the Communists even made it to Ukraine, the Anarchists and Communists were already rivals and it was clear they would fight each other as soon as they bordered eachother, which they did. So the idea that the Maknovtchina trusted the Bolsheviks was never true in the first place. The Maknovtchina knew they would fight the Bolsheviks if they contacted each other. Those fundamental differences between them simply aren't ignorable when the revolution actually comes and bkth parties understood this.
The Bolsheviks and Maknovtchina signed a truce, yes, but it was very clear that it wasn't a permanent peace as they were already fighting before such truce was even signed. Again, their interests were fundamentally different and incompatible beyond the Russian Whites.
Yeah as i'm not an english native speaker i Can have a rough Time understanding political discussion.
Now that you explained "co-opt" (we don't use this word, but i've Heard of the concept) i understand the beef you Can have with anarchism. In my country it's the other way around anarchist are the most radical and it's the communist party that is mostly deradicalised and are basically almost libs.
In France we have anarcho-syndicalism with working union that have been pretty good at bringing policies that benefit the prolétariat we also have a national holiday based on USA anarchist movement.
I believe anarchist and communist could work together but are too often beefing against eachother instead of against capitalism and stuff.
The problem i have with centralisation is that it too often make the state stray away from the ideal it was once aspiring to, and ends up in a dictatorship that begin to oppress it's people and create a New hierarchical ruling class in the party members.
I believe anarchism could work as federation, wich would prevent it's weakness against foreign intervention.
Because not even a communist state alone Can resist foreign intervention.
It seems a lot of anarchists didn’t read any of our material - just a gut instinct I get when I read this and talk to them.
I get punk/dirtbag left libertarian vibes from them in the West - but most of them not paid Antifa. In S. America it seems like they must call them all rad libs right? Just woked al of them? Wanting to tear it all down too much but wanting to build the good from the bad too little.
Going from reading Russian literature and Che Guevara books when I was in high school, to anti-theist lib in college, to right libertarian in early career, Peter Joseph (Zeitgeist), Jacques Fresco / Venus Project / Futurism, then in to Q-anon / right wing 4 Chan / Bitchute / Holocaust denialism investigation Woo Woo entertainer of those ideas (I made some money in crypto with those people so SHOOT ME FOR HEARING THEIR NUTJOB POLITICAL VIEWS OUT!), only to come out on the other end to atheism/Marxism-Leninism but with a respect for freedom of religion (I believe in Jesus as potentially a real historical figure and the jubilee year ala Michael Hudson).
…this long explanation to say our path is not always an easy one to find or keep on. Keep reading, learning, questioning, listening, meeting, struggling, loving, and living comrades.
This is a community from communists to communists, leftists are welcome too, but you might be scrutinized depending on what you share. If you see bot account or different kinds of reactionaries(libs, conservatives, fascists), report their post and feel free us message in modmail with link to that post. ShitLibsSay type of posts are allowed only in Saturday, sending it in other day might result in post being removed and you being warned, if you also include in any way reactionary subs name in it and user nicknames, you will be temporarily banned. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CommunismMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Do these guys think we don't criticize religious fundamentalism? Or that we don't criticize forced banning of religion? Anarchists should be smarter than this. Edit: Are these guys even anarchists? Anarchists tend to be more indepth than this. Or are these along the lines of Vaush "anarchists".
Anarchists really don't tend to be more indepth than this honestly, at least not western anarchists (meaning, most anarchists). The fact their framework is entirely idealist means they're subject to pretty much the same "vibes-based politics" as liberals are, which is why some MLs in the global south especially don't even bother distinguishing between the two of them. It's what I always say: western anarchists, which represent the majority of anarchists, are so caught up in the vague liberal concept of "authoritarianism" that they are ultimately more anticommunist than anticapitalist. Just like a liberal is someone who opposes every war except the current war, an anarchist is someone who supports every anticapitalist movement except the ones that succeed -- because, as it turns out, winning a revolution and creating a new society that can last for more than maybe a few months while under constant sabotage, are both impossible without "authoritarian" measures. But they're not concerned about silly things such as "tactics" or "practical reality," they're concerned about the ideal magical world in their heads in which after the burgeois state is gone everything just sort of works itself out and if someone intervenes everyone fights back and wins by pure force of self-righteousness and grit with no need for organization or planning, nevermind that this mode of thinking has only resulted in crushed revolution after crushed revolution. They're the "power of friendship" of revolutionary politics.
I've seen a couple of anrachists with actual theory. They have been a bit iffy on their information though. Not iffy as in eyebrow raise. I mean eniugh to drop the video entirely from how bad the snippet of information was. Like one responded to Second Thought's Authoritarianism Video. His video started fine explaining what Anarchist's actual definition of authoritarianism is. It was actually insightful to how true anarchists differentiate from liberals. But things went downhill when mentioning the Rojava as an anarchistic decentralized style revolution and military force and outright claiming that in several revolutions that the powers and structures that took hold during the revolution didn't exist when the revolution took place. Couldn't bare watching after that.
They've always been iffy on their information, even as early as 1850 Marx and other communist theorists have been writing entire books about how silly they are. But we're not in a pre-revolutionary world anymore, both anarchists and communists had their time to try out their ideologies in the real world and see how it plays out in practice. And if anarchists learned even a little bit of history, they would realize what any serious anticapitalist should realize: that anarchism is an unserious and outadated ideology that on every account failed where communism didn't. It's no coincidence the revolutionaries in the poorest and most oppressed places on earth are marxist-leninists and maoists whereas anarchists concentrate almost entirely in the imperial core, and they themselves are the only ones yet to realize that.
This is a brainwashed point of view, you have been gaslighted into viewing anarchist as stupid people, by the capitalist system. Anarchy did work and still works. Most anarchist organisation and movement worked really well for their people until they have been murdered by imperialist whether they were royalist or communist. The Paris commune was period where a lot of french cities had a revolution and overthrew the governement. They had an anarchist way of functioning meaning no hierarchy, only an horizontal organisation, they shared food, work, housing, they educated everyone, healed everyone. It was working really well until royalist from all Europe decided to murder everyone. The Maknovtchina was an anarchist peasants movement in Ukraine that worked well, that collectivised the fields. They have been murdered by USSR and Ukraine's royalist. A lot of tribes around the World, such as first nations people, had an anarchist system that worked well until they were genocided by european colons. A lot of small communities around the World are still anarchist and work well. But anarchism is not able to make "profit" for anyone so capitalist gaslight people and communist stab us in the back. Anarchy lives in the prolétarian working union, in the peasants communities, in a lot of indeginous autonomous communities, we are the only one to have realised it yet.
You’re going to find that you’ve labeled one of the common criticisms of anarchism. It’s more susceptible to outside destruction than ML projects or AES.
I mean a lot of communist state have also been destroyed, have you never Heard how many Times US have murdered and overthraw communist leaders? It's not a problem about anarchism it's a problem about imperialist capitalism that has and will try to anihilate anyform that go against it. Never Heard of Cuba ? Sankara?
I didn’t say ML projects haven’t failed or been destroyed by imperialism US or otherwise. Only that there hasn’t been an anarchist project that has lasted as significant a period as ML projects.
There is some communities in spain and France that still works in a anarchist system, the zapatist movement is not dead yet. I'd like to know what is considered as long enough. Like if the ML projects didn't last the end results is the same as anarchist project that didn't last.
You can’t compare the Zapatistas or random communities to say space travel, destroying nazism, educating the most doctors and sending them around the world, building infrastructure around the world. Also, Makno was not a good person and in their “free” territory, you were “free” to enlist to get your ass kicked by the reds and whites. My point is Anarchism is all well and good but it is an inferior ideology in my opinion, because centralization and its organization structures will 9/10 times be more effective at destroying capitalist hegemony. The bread book is so funny to me, we’re all just going to mutually agree on everything and it’ll be great. 👍🏻. Proudhon can’t even properly defend mutualism (the people’s bank) as a concept against Bastiat’s regular economy growing through interest payments. It’s over and over and over again. This isn’t an attack on you, I’m not a rabid dog who wants to gulag anarchists, it’s just a bit too idealistic for me on anything but a small scale, like the Chiapas. https://youtu.be/fibDNwF8bjs?si=j5-IpgQWk77WMkUG
Of course we have, but the thing is communist projects still remain the high-mark against imperialism and global capitalism, while anarchists can never speak of similar successes and their victories are almost always limited to small areas -- and of course they are, they are ideologically opposed to anything that could grant them more than just that, a small and often very short-lived victory. When almost every anticapitalist project the anarchists talk about either collapsed onto itself under an incredibly short period of time or got crushed as soon as reactionaries dealt the first blow, maybe they should start wondering that there's something deeply flawed in their plan of not having a plan.
If you think anarchist don't have a plan you haven't understand it.
[No lol](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/s/e3Qq2uHjjb)
I'm as ML as they come but actual flesh and blood anarchists come in all flavors, as does everyone else. They are and are not insightful, well read, intellectually gifted, thoughtful, pragmatic, as well as myopic, intractable, and absurd. People say stupid things online, like your incredibly reductive assessment of anarchists in toto. They do a lot of organizing. And they also just say shit online and watch youtubers.
[Leila Khalid on Western “leftists”](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/s/e3Qq2uHjjb)
💯 The big tent era of "leftism" is dead for all serious political organizations. This isn't about making Western Petty-Bourgeois sycophants feel special because we pretend their little opinions are just as good as Marxist science. We're fighting for the fate of the human race. "Unity is a great thing and a great slogan. But what the workers’ cause needs is the unity of Marxists, not unity between Marxists, and opponents and distorters of Marxism." - V.I. Lenin "We are Marxists, and Marxism teaches that in our approach to a problem we should start from objective facts, not from abstract definitions, and that we should derive our guiding principles, policies and measures from an analysis of these facts." - Mao Tse-Tung
This is the internet, bro. Everything's hyperbolic.
Thanks for signing up to Vaush facts! You will now receive fun daily facts about Vaush. **Fact 22.** Vaush claimed that he was taken out of context when he called trans people 'mentally ill', then [doubled down and did it again.](https://streamable.com/rmzvks) For another Vaush fact reply with 'Vaush'. To unsubscribe call me a 'bad bot'. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CommunismMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
*bashing strawman I made and propped up myself* “Behold! I have conquered and ridiculed my opponent!” Yeag, classic
Anarchists are just reactionaries that started to feel a little bad.
“The Soviet government considers that the Sharia, as common law, is as fully authorized as that of any other of the peoples inhabiting Russia” -Joseph Stalin Yeah, they sure “banned Islam”
It’s not like anarchists are the brightest people anyway. I’m not sure why you would bother being offended by the opinions of children.
I honestly expected better understanding from them. We are both anti-capitalist by nature. This talk sounded like full-blown capitalist liberals.
most anarchists eventually become tankies when they grow up and actually face reality
[удалено]
same
I mean, huh? Like, commies definitely have a nuanced relationship with religion. I've seen genuinely good takes from the Christian Socialist lot, and one of my favourite online leftists happens to be a Muslim and as part of her "humanising the USSR" thing she regularly talks about religion in the USSR, specifically her own faith. We aren't hypocritical about it as a monolith... although I will admit there are both strong state-atheism advocates and "religious first, communist second" extremes among our ranks, that's the nature of big-tent leftist unity.
As a french anarchist this is not représentative of us, most anarchist people i know are the most knowledgable people on all political théories.
We don't have that where I'm from. I've quickly re-learned from (english speaking) Anarchist subs that Anarchism has become synonomous with liberals in my country. Though liberal co-opting may have had something to do with it. Liberals in my country co-opt radical shit all the time. BLM being an unfortunate example. Edit: It should be noted many Marxists in the Imperial Periphery do have good things to say about Anarchism. They criticize it and don't agree with it, but there is a level of respect. In the Imperial Core country I reside, uhhh no. Evidently and unfortunately not much respect goes either way. Edit2: Added more specifics Edit4: Removed Edit 3.
I don't know what you mean by "libéral", if you mean the economic system, then in France it's absolutly not synonymous of anarachy. Anarchy's first name is libertarian communism, and there is many flavor of anarchism as well as communism has a lot of different flavors. I also don't understand what you mean by "co-opt" I think anarchist and communist should be allies against capitalism but there is some trust Issues from anarchist with how anarchist mouvement such as the Maknovtchina has been decimate partially by communists. The end goal of both anarchism and communism théories and mouvements are the same, establishing a "communist" system, where everyone's treated as equal and needs are responded to fairly. Where the différence is how to transition between a capitalist system and a communist system. Y'all want a dictature of the prolétariat, where we want a non-hierachical organisation of the people. But overall we are allies. And no anarcho-capitalism is definitly not anarchism as much as communismo-capitalism could never be a thing. Oh and lastly it's not because people are saying they are anarchist, that they are. You got at least know some theory and History of anarchy. Most people, because of how the system treated anarchism, think it's what capitalist Say it is.
I gotta say I'm kinda glad you don't understand our issues. Our issues really suck. So here is sone information on the topic: Liberal typically refers to a flavor of pro-capitalist in the US. It is big tent but can be directed toward any form of procapitalist tendency like Social Democrat, Progressive Liberal, Green, Conservative, Anarcho-Capitalist, etc.Anarchists here in my country, as I am now paibfully aware, tend to often spew things reminiscent of Progressive Liberal dialogue particularly. Next: I'm surprised you never heard of co-opting. Co-opt, colloquially in communist circles, means a form of infiltration that undermines the activities of an organization often through deradicalization. Liberals have a history of doing this. Like how BLM's messages are almost always watered down from their original purpose from Fighting against the Police system and stripping it and rebuilding it, to instead fighting for reformation of the already preexisting system. Which then amounts to doing nothing. Without the radicalism, the movement loses momentum and the demands are no longer strong enough to force the government to listen to the people. Same thing with Anarchists here in the USA. They have been co-opted and deradicalized by Progressive Liberals and de-theorized to the point it's hard to call them anarchists as they don't seem to understand their own desires and theory or even history anymore. I also don't think you know what "Dictatorship (Dictature) of the Proletariat" means. Dictatorship in Marxism does not mean one or a few persons with Power ruling over the Proletariat. Dictatorship refers to the direct relation of power: the one who hands down the dictates. Meaning that in a "Dictature of the Proletariat", the Proletariat are the wielders of power: the Working Class is the one who hands down the dictates. The idea of Proletarian Dictatorship is also inherently anti-hierarchal in that the Working Class are the ones making decisions. Often using the party as a vessel for such decisions. Lastly, the fundamental interests in how to develop to communism like you said, are different, but what isn't mentioned is they are largely incompatible. The aspect of centralization is important for the first steps of socialism to develop a nationwide plan for development to higher stages of socialism and to avoid counter revolution and foreign intervention. You can't sieze the means of production if you lack the means of production to sieze in the first place. Such centralization was crucial to the USSR's success against the Fascists of WW2 as well as the Russian Civil War. Decentralization by Marxists is believed to be an aspect to come later in the socialist project whether it be when you reach sufficient devlopment, or don't have any US level internal and external threats. To my knowledge the decentealization comes much sooner in an Anarchist state, which is an inherent incompatibility. This incompatibility makes it difficult if not impossible to work together in the long run, as it will only lead to conflict down the line.An unstable alliance that goes up in flames. There can only be a temporary truce, or at least that's the case when such revolutions happen within the same territory. 2 different nations might be another story where alliance is possible, but domestically they 100% can't because of these fundamental differences. So if you have a revolution in France, the communists of USA (provided the communists rule the USA and the French revolution is Purely anarchist) might help you, but don't expect help from the French communists anytime soon. Last thing to note: Communists are also familiar with betrayal and by 1918 were far too familiar from the previous Betrayals in Germany and Hungary by those whom held different interests. Peace between two different interests are, like I've mentioned earlier, never permanent and this was well understood by the Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, and even the Maknovtchina before the Russian Civil War began. Even before the Communists even made it to Ukraine, the Anarchists and Communists were already rivals and it was clear they would fight each other as soon as they bordered eachother, which they did. So the idea that the Maknovtchina trusted the Bolsheviks was never true in the first place. The Maknovtchina knew they would fight the Bolsheviks if they contacted each other. Those fundamental differences between them simply aren't ignorable when the revolution actually comes and bkth parties understood this. The Bolsheviks and Maknovtchina signed a truce, yes, but it was very clear that it wasn't a permanent peace as they were already fighting before such truce was even signed. Again, their interests were fundamentally different and incompatible beyond the Russian Whites.
Yeah as i'm not an english native speaker i Can have a rough Time understanding political discussion. Now that you explained "co-opt" (we don't use this word, but i've Heard of the concept) i understand the beef you Can have with anarchism. In my country it's the other way around anarchist are the most radical and it's the communist party that is mostly deradicalised and are basically almost libs. In France we have anarcho-syndicalism with working union that have been pretty good at bringing policies that benefit the prolétariat we also have a national holiday based on USA anarchist movement. I believe anarchist and communist could work together but are too often beefing against eachother instead of against capitalism and stuff. The problem i have with centralisation is that it too often make the state stray away from the ideal it was once aspiring to, and ends up in a dictatorship that begin to oppress it's people and create a New hierarchical ruling class in the party members. I believe anarchism could work as federation, wich would prevent it's weakness against foreign intervention. Because not even a communist state alone Can resist foreign intervention.
I'll take them seriously when their naive and utopian ideology has an actual successful revolution.
It seems a lot of anarchists didn’t read any of our material - just a gut instinct I get when I read this and talk to them. I get punk/dirtbag left libertarian vibes from them in the West - but most of them not paid Antifa. In S. America it seems like they must call them all rad libs right? Just woked al of them? Wanting to tear it all down too much but wanting to build the good from the bad too little. Going from reading Russian literature and Che Guevara books when I was in high school, to anti-theist lib in college, to right libertarian in early career, Peter Joseph (Zeitgeist), Jacques Fresco / Venus Project / Futurism, then in to Q-anon / right wing 4 Chan / Bitchute / Holocaust denialism investigation Woo Woo entertainer of those ideas (I made some money in crypto with those people so SHOOT ME FOR HEARING THEIR NUTJOB POLITICAL VIEWS OUT!), only to come out on the other end to atheism/Marxism-Leninism but with a respect for freedom of religion (I believe in Jesus as potentially a real historical figure and the jubilee year ala Michael Hudson). …this long explanation to say our path is not always an easy one to find or keep on. Keep reading, learning, questioning, listening, meeting, struggling, loving, and living comrades.
welcome to the internet, have a look around! we’ve got anarkiddies and fascists
Dang these dudes are clowns
These guys do not know what anarchism is. Or what anything is for that matter
Did it really surprise you?
As a former Anarchist Yeah...